The foowing is on e bay. But is all as it should be 505 was Baden I. but why would the number be on the inside of the door? (An aid to absent minded crew members as to which tank they wee in?). Blowing up the picture the machine gun looks fake - there is no way it can elevate or depress. The figure closest to the tank when looked at say in 2 or 3 times magnification looks as if he has escaped from the display window of a millitary outfitters and is actually made of plaster. On the other hand why go to all the trouble?
centurion, you say,"An aid to absent minded crew members as to which tank they wee in?)" i think if i was in a tank and people were shooting at me, i would do more than wee in it! i dont know about the machine guns, but the 'tailor's dummy' does at least have dust on his boots. if the tank is a mock up, its a really good one.
Better than being outside one with people shooting at you. Blow ups - any help to anyone?
the man could have just decided to take a photo in that odd pose, he looks quite real as for the machinegun, it looks fake maybe they lost it in combat and decided to replace it with a dummy one
If U compare the two men one definitely looks very dummy like. Surely the German army in 1918 never got quite so desperate that they couldn't find a replacement Maxim? On the other hand if one was setting up say a disabled A7V to act as a decoy one would expect all the usful equipment to be removed first.
The foowing is on e bay. But is all as it should be 505 was Baden I. but why would the number be on the inside of the door?
Quite often the number was painted on the inside of the door, as well as on the chassis front. Why it was done is possibly to aid re-attaching parts removed with the correct tank. A7V's were more of a series of one-offs than a production line model and parts from one A7V would not necessarily fit another A7V. Whole bodies excepted; there were two cases where bodies from one A7V were fitted to another chassis (502/503 and 504/544)
Centurion wrote:
Blow ups - any help to anyone?
The photo dummy1.jpg looks very much like the type 2 MG aperture as described by Hundleby & Strasheim. The type 2 aperture was fitted to 505.
As for the dummy-like appearance of the officer, I have no suggestions to add that haven't been raised already. Perhaps he just didn't turn out well in photos.